Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-03-21
THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE SUED:

THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE SUED:
1t is well known that the late Legisla-
ture was strongly moved to amend our sys-
tenn of government to permit any citizen
to sue the State The people are to be con-
graduated that the measure failed. We
have such faith in the Governor as to be-
lieye that had the houses committed the
folly he would have declined to sanction
it. The substructural reasons of the rule
that the State shall not be sued except by
its own consent are familiar to all They
are so eminently sound, and are so essen
tial to true democracy and the mainten-
ance of the sovereignty of the State, that
had we the power we would extend them
so as to erect barriers to suits against the
State which not even the Legislature
should have power to throw down. And
for these two very simple and impregnable
reasons into whatever wrong the State
may be led to the injury of any citizen, the
people of the State, in their representative
assembly, may still do justice and dispense
equity to heal the wound. To per-
NIT suits against the State of any
nature whatever is to transfer the most i'm
portant function of government from the
legislative to the judicial department, and
thus destroy an essential link in the chain
of checks and balances upon which the
liberties of the people depend. The funda
mental idea of democratic government is
that the supreme control must be in the
people, and that must be made manifest
through the agency of their representative
body. Whatever claims are to be made
against the people in their aggregated
character, should be presented to and
passed upon by the representative body of
the people, and their adjudication not be
delegated to any other branch of the gov
eminent.
1t is not to be concealed that there is ex-
tant a sentiment supporting the scheme to
open the door to whomsoever may choose
to sue the State, and it is therefore of great
importance that from this time forward
there shall be such discussion of the sub
ject that when the next Legislature assem-
bles, it will represent sentiment adverse
to the scheme of spoliation. We say spoil
alton, for that is the kernel Of the matter
when stripped of its FEASIBILITY. Under
such a rule as the Legislature proposed to
adopt plundering the treasury would be-
come common vocation. Nothing is cas-
Ter than to trump up claims against the
State. 1t costs nothing to do so, and as a
mere gambling device would be practiced
openly by hordes of constituencies schem-
ers, with everything to gain AMI nothing
to lose.
1t is no extravaganza to say that if
law should go into effect to-day permitting
any citizen to sue the State of California,
that within month half thousand suits
would be commenced, every plaintiff de-
manding "smart money" or compensation
from the treasury. We could catalogue
half hundred Of these possible suits from
memory at single sitting. The State
could not be properly defended against in
discriminate litigation and wholesale
charges upon her vaults. Her Attorney
General could not possibly be expected,
however able and diligent to defend the
State under such system. Two score of
attorneys and detectives would be INSULT
Gent to probe for and develop the truth in
such litigation There is some force in
these considerations, though admitted to
be secondary.
But the scheme would involve the pro
motion of legislation invented for the
very purpose of inaicting injury, 10 be
made the basis for actions against the
State Where private property rights
were assailed under such system, the
sufferer would remain silent until the in
jury had been inflicted, and then, suing
the State, he would reap q rich harvest
of compensation; for the State always
pays heavily; it is deemed legitimate-at
least, excusable-at all times to make the
commonwealth pay dearly, and smart for
all it gets, and in the process of stripping
her of every cent that can. by hook or by
crook, be wrung from her strong box, no
compunctions prick the sense of fair
dealing and honesty. Consequently, we
repeat, legislation would become the
means to the ends of "iobbery suits, and
the claims would become agencies for the
corruption of Legislators and State depart
ments. As a result, all legislation upon
which possible claim could be based
would become either corrupt or hating
and timid, and it would be exceedingly
difficult to formulate a law, which might
not be so contorted as to become the cause
for suit against the State.
Governments have established ihe rule
that states should not be sued except by
their consent, as the result of ages of expe-
rieuce-the rule is the outgrowth Of wis
dom under trial 1t is not the lifting up
of Government above the people, but a
shield to the Government against the as
saults Of the venal. As Justice Field in
the celebrated case of @The Siren 50
well said:
The doctrine rests upon reasons of.public pol
icy the Inconvenience and danger which
would result from any different rule. The pub
lie service would be hindered and the pubic
could be subjected to suits at the instance OF
every eiizel. and, consequently, controlled IN
the i-e and disposition Of the means required
melt.